The Voynich Ninja

(03-03-2023, 02:17 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To bring this back to the topic of the thread, the only factors that separate repetitions such as "daiin daiin" from repetitions such as "oror" would seem to be the length of the repeated segments and the presence or absence of spaces between the repetitions.  Could these be manifestations of the same phenomenon?

They could be. Spaces are too inconsistent to be trusted. A metric for sequential repetition without word breaks could be, with detection of sequentially repeated substrings, their % by length relative to the total length of the text or twice this value to include what is repeated.
blatotobla: 2/10, 40% sequentially repetitive text
totoblabla: 5/10, 100% sequentially repetitive text

Finding a word in 'normal' language that works in both the distance 1 and distance 2 situations is not very productive, as I see it. Perhaps, there are other suggestions. I only have one example.

For distance 1 (A A), a narrative; 'we had ten sheep wolves killed ONE ONE froze dead'
For distance 2 (A B A), a common phrase; 'ONE by ONE'
So, there would be a set of numerical examples.

The second part of the A B A investigation is the examination of the B vord. In the 32 examples of "daiin <B vord> daiin", what's up with the B vord? Is it always the same? Or is there a lot of diversity? And also the identification of the vords themselves. Do they expand the limited vocabulary seen so far in the sequence vords or do they not? And then there are the B vords used in the other distance 2 examples. Plotting examples to relevant folios would indicate if there is clustering.

(03-03-2023, 08:03 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is it always the same? Or is there a lot of diversity?

It looks like a lot of diversity to me. Why not learn to regex and answer your own questions?

(03-03-2023, 02:17 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-03-2023, 08:38 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Here's a French document dated January 4, 1399 (old style; modern January 14, 1400), in which we see a phrase clearly written as both "arpens de terres" and "arpens deterres" in close proximity.]
[And You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.'s a link to a published transcription of a German register with entries for 1500-1503 in which we see "mitnamen" and "mit namen" alternating in different years.  Of course these could have been written by different people; I don't have a facsimile.  But "mitnamen" is the unexpected variant based on modern expectations ("mit Namen"), and I can provide a facsimile of the first line of a document dated 1489 that clearly runs these words together, suggesting that we shouldn't assume in the other case that this was a mistake on the part of the transcriber.]
[To bring this back to the topic of the thread, the only factors that separate repetitions such as "daiin daiin" from repetitions such as "oror" would seem to be the length of the repeated segments and the presence or absence of spaces between the repetitions.  Could these be manifestations of the same phenomenon?]

I carefully looked at the sample images you shared from ancient manuscripts in two different languages. Although I do not know both languages in which these articles are written and I see the first letters of the words in the first image as different letters, this point for me will probably be a misreading due to my not knowing these languages.

The first image you choose is most likely just a blank space due to a typo.

Please look at the image carefully here: [attachment=7223]

When we enlarge the words a little, we see that during the writing of one of these words written on the same page, the second letter was written by sliding over the first letter (as a handwriting mechanical error). It looks like a gap has formed as a result of this scrolling.

In the second image you were share, I could only read the word "mitnamen" once, but could not see the second one. As I said, I don't know these languages, maybe I couldn't read them.

However, you may think that I consider the examples you gave as successful by approaching from these rare finds. Even so, I think that few exceptions should not be compared with the frequent repetitions seen in many examples and on almost every page throughout the text.

For my interpretation of "daiin daiin" and any other word, please pluck a photo of these repetitions from the original pages or a photo of a whole line with the meaning of the searched word. So, in my first spare time, I will try to read the curious word or words.

Since there are differences between the phonetic mappings to some letter correspondences in EVA variations and I am not familiar with EVA tables, I do not follow them. I'll try to answer your question if you use ATA transcription or quote photos of the images.

On the other hand, although some words in Turkish appear to you as repetitions/reduplications, when they are written adjacent, some of them are not reduplications (a repetition of the same word adjacent to it without a space).

For example, the word you express as "oror" should probably be the word we read as "arar" or "erer". Here, the first ar- syllable is the root of the word, the second -ar syllable is just a word suffix. In addition, there is another word that is written "arar", whose root word is "ara-" and the suffix is "-r". The verb form of the root of this word is "to seek" (to seek, to search, to call).

"-er" at the end of the word "erer" is a word suffix. This lexical suffix functions exactly the same as the suffix "-ar". Changing the vowel here does not change the function of this suffix.

Here, the semantic content of the root word "er-" may be different. There are also dialect-groups that express the word "er" as "ar" with some dialect differences (or vice versa).

All this seems complicated to people who think in Indo-European languages. In other words, even if we never encoded a Turkish script 600 years ago, there would be a lot of Indo-Europeans who would think that it could be ciphertext.

Due to the multitude of words that have different meanings even though they are spelled the same, we need to look at the previous and/or the next word to distinguish them during reading. Or sometimes we must be reading the whole sentence so that we can understand what is written correctly.

For example, when we show the word "erer" in the example sentence, you will understand how the word written in the same way changes the meaning.

Please see the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. translator image here: 
[attachment=7224]

Please see that points in the source link below;
- Causative Mood Suffix -ar -er" in page 370
- Regular verbs use the regular tense sign -er (for Dotted Vowel Group E İ Ö Ü) in page 642
- -ar/-er/-ır/-ir/-ur/-ür and -r > From the Simple Present Participle Positive in page 582
here in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You can refer to this resource to see the meaning contents of AR and ER root words too > "Türkçe Kökler Sözlüğü" (Turkish Roots Dictionary) by Eyuboğlu I.Z. 2016
here > You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Additionally; It is also possible to see that the word "AR" is shown as a color name in the Divanü Lügati't-Türk book, which is a historical manuscript dictionary.
AR > maroon, auburn (kestane rengi, kumral, konural)

AR > You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thanks

A. Ardıç

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Although I do not know both languages in which these articles are written and I see the first letters of the words in the first image as different letters, this point for me will probably be a misreading due to my not knowing these languages.

The way in which [e] was formed in the French handwriting of this period might be confusing because its two parts aren't joined.  Below I've highlighted three tokens of [e] in red to illustrate their structure.

[attachment=7225]

Otherwise, de is a preposition equivalent to English "of" and terres is the plural of terre ("land").  In modern French, these are treated in writing as two separate words.  In Middle French, however, de was sometimes joined to the word that followed it.  This is still done conventionally today when the following word begins with a vowel, e.g., d'eau ("of water").

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The first image you choose is most likely just a blank space due to a typo.
<...>
When we enlarge the words a little, we see that during the writing of one of these words written on the same page, the second letter was written by sliding over the first letter (as a handwriting mechanical error). It looks like a gap has formed as a result of this scrolling.

Here are enlarged images of those two sequences, plus three tokens of "de terre" / "deterre" without an [s] from the same document.

[attachment=7226] 

The last case strikes me as ambiguously spaced -- if it were in the Voynich Manuscript, the ZL transcription might have shown it as a "comma break."  But in the other cases, the spacing (or absence of spacing) appears to be as definite as it is anywhere in the document.

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the second image you were share, I could only read the word "mitnamen" once, but could not see the second one.

You're right that the second image contains only "mitnamen"; as I wrote, I was presenting it only to show that this unspaced form was in use and shouldn't be rejected lightly as a transcription error in the other published source I cited.  It literally means "with names" and was used in conventional legal expressions such as "we the hereinafter-mentioned with names X, Y, and Z."

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, you may think that I consider the examples you gave as successful by approaching from these rare finds. Even so, I think that few exceptions should not be compared with the frequent repetitions seen in many examples and on almost every page throughout the text.

They're not "rare finds" or a "few exceptions" -- to the contrary, they turn up constantly in documents of this kind.  I'm not eager to spend more time simply documenting their existence, so let me instead place the burden of proof on you: can you show that spacing was in fact as consistent in writings of the fifteenth century (in Italy, Germany, France, etc.) as your argument about prefixes requires it to have been?  

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For my interpretation of "daiin daiin" and any other word, please pluck a photo of these repetitions from the original pages or a photo of a whole line with the meaning of the searched word. 

I wasn't looking for an interpretation of any specific case, but was just curious whether you had some alternative hypothesis about the phenomenon of spaced and unspaced pairs in general.  Of course there are tools readily available which you could use yourself to look up where cases of these appear and link them back to facsimiles.  But if you'd need to investigate the individual cases now in order to answer the question, that in itself might already answer the question -- i.e., you believe the pattern is illusory and that every apparent case of it actually has its own entirely separate explanation.  Is that much fair to say?

I decided to have a recap of what has been proposed in this thread over eight years and here's my summary:

1) The sequential repetitions are just underlay-language-natural, becuase many phenomena can cause it, such as:
- syllabic/homophonic (like "pur Purpur" etc)
- poetic/incantation/invocation (like "kyrieleis kyrieleis kyrieleis" or "rise! rise! rise!")
- emphasis
- in some languages (like Chinese) sequential repetition is just normal beyond any special circumstances

However, the whole group of these explanations does not agree very well with the (high) density of repetitions, in the first place, and with the (large) amount of distinct vords subject to sequential repetition, in the second place.

2) The recent suggestion of numbers

Does not agree very well with the large amount of distinct vords subject to sequential repetition. Also, triple and quadruple repetitions imply operating with large numbers - in the region of hundreds and even thousands.

3) The effect of uncertain spacing

4) Scribal errors - dittography or haplography

In fact, the simplest explanation. With the large amount of quasi-reduplications it is likely that some of those would transform into exact reduplications through scribal errors. However, this implies that the whole text has been blindly copied from another source.

5) Side-effect of some vord-level transformation process, like shuffling/transposition. This still lacks a quantitative estimation of how probable it is that a text without reduplications would transform into a text with plenty of reduplications through the said process. Besides, I checked with one if the balneo folios (don't remember the number offhand, but that was that qockeedy-heavy folio with the quad-reduplication), and transposition of the text did not remove all reduplications. At least one reduplication remained.

6) Autocopying to fill blanks (left from some previous encoding process). I consider this worth of further investigation, especially given that, as pfeaster wrote above, reduplications tend to avoid line-start and line-end positions. It would be useful to explore if there is correlation between reduplications and baseline jumps.

**

I would also like to throw in another idea which recently occured to me, and that is: the ordered listing.

Imagine two sets which have a many-to-one relation between them. For example: one set is the set of the days of week, like this:

{Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday}

The other set is the set of meals, like this:

{Meat, Fish, Vegetable}.

And the relation is established like this:

Monday -> Meat
Tuesday -> Fish
Wednesday -> Fish
Thursday -> Vegetable
Friday -> Vegetable
Saturday -> Meat
Sunday -> Meat

Then, describing this relation in text, you would obtain three double repetitions or two double and one triple repetition, depending on your starting point, like this:

The sequence of meals for days from Monday through Sunday is as follows: Meat, Fish, Fish, Vegetable, Vegetable, Meat, Meat

or

The sequence of meals for days from Saturday through Friday is as follows: Meat, Meat, Meat, Fish, Fish, Vegetable, Vegetable

This explanation faces the same problem as the clause 1) above - there would be in excess of 100 notions to be included in ordered lists, but otherwise it's quite elegant, I think.

(04-03-2023, 03:05 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Although I do not know both languages in which these articles are written and I see the first letters of the words in the first image as different letters, this point for me will probably be a misreading due to my not knowing these languages.

The way in which [e] was formed in the French handwriting of this period might be confusing because its two parts aren't joined.  Below I've highlighted three tokens of [e] in red to illustrate their structure.



Otherwise, de is a preposition equivalent to English "of" and terres is the plural of terre ("land").  In modern French, these are treated in writing as two separate words.  In Middle French, however, de was sometimes joined to the word that followed it.  This is still done conventionally today when the following word begins with a vowel, e.g., d'eau ("of water").

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The first image you choose is most likely just a blank space due to a typo.
<...>
When we enlarge the words a little, we see that during the writing of one of these words written on the same page, the second letter was written by sliding over the first letter (as a handwriting mechanical error). It looks like a gap has formed as a result of this scrolling.

Here are enlarged images of those two sequences, plus three tokens of "de terre" / "deterre" without an [s] from the same document.

 

The last case strikes me as ambiguously spaced -- if it were in the Voynich Manuscript, the ZL transcription might have shown it as a "comma break."  But in the other cases, the spacing (or absence of spacing) appears to be as definite as it is anywhere in the document.

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the second image you were share, I could only read the word "mitnamen" once, but could not see the second one.

You're right that the second image contains only "mitnamen"; as I wrote, I was presenting it only to show that this unspaced form was in use and shouldn't be rejected lightly as a transcription error in the other published source I cited.  It literally means "with names" and was used in conventional legal expressions such as "we the hereinafter-mentioned with names X, Y, and Z."

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, you may think that I consider the examples you gave as successful by approaching from these rare finds. Even so, I think that few exceptions should not be compared with the frequent repetitions seen in many examples and on almost every page throughout the text.

They're not "rare finds" or a "few exceptions" -- to the contrary, they turn up constantly in documents of this kind.  I'm not eager to spend more time simply documenting their existence, so let me instead place the burden of proof on you: can you show that spacing was in fact as consistent in writings of the fifteenth century (in Italy, Germany, France, etc.) as your argument about prefixes requires it to have been?  

(03-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Ahmet Ardıç Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For my interpretation of "daiin daiin" and any other word, please pluck a photo of these repetitions from the original pages or a photo of a whole line with the meaning of the searched word. 

[I wasn't looking for an interpretation of any specific case, but was just curious whether you had some alternative hypothesis about the phenomenon of spaced and unspaced pairs in general.  Of course there are tools readily available which you could use yourself to look up where cases of these appear and link them back to facsimiles.  But if you'd need to investigate the individual cases now in order to answer the question, that in itself might already answer the question -- i.e., you believe the pattern is illusory and that every apparent case of it actually has its own entirely separate explanation.  Is that much fair to say?]

Dear Sir,

While I am doing my assessment on the aforementioned details, I am trying to find information that will make it easier for me to compare the details I am looking for among the articles written in English. While making the detail-specific comparison we mentioned, I try to look at and try to understand how the same situation is happening in European languages.

When I carried out such a search, I could not find any academic article about the fact that the same authors could always write the prefixes separately and together, and this is a common situation in European manuscripts. For this reason, I would appreciate if anyone came across a separate academic article on how this detail was handled in the old written texts of European languages, and if they would share this source with me.

Let me talk about what I see in the spelling of the word "de terre" / "deterre", which you have given in 5 different forms so that we can compare. (Probably, your and my perspective and interpretation will be different.) When I look at the spelling of the words "de terre" / "deterre" here, I see that there is a space between the continued part in every spelling where the second letter is shifted over the first letter. I think that the author of this text repeats the same mechanical typo or carelessness from time to time. So, In my opinion these examples are too weak to change my general approach and perspective on this subject.

After we had finished reading the first full sentences and the first full page of the VM texts, we had submitted an article hoping it could be published in a Western journal. But that our article was not published in that journal. As the reason for not being published, the comments written by two reviewers who read and evaluated our article were sent to us.

According to these people, "weak aspects of our article" or details that were deemed inappropriate were conveyed to us by that journal. When we looked at that comments, we saw that all of the criticisms (or all the points that are assumed to be inappropriate in some details in the content of our article) only consisted of the personal views of two people who did not know about Old-Turkish.

One of the details in these people's poor and inconsistent reviews was about these prefixes issue.

Would it be logical to think that the author writes prefixes sometimes adjacent and sometimes separately, or would it be wiser to think that they are not prefixes, but simply written as stand-alone words and word-roots?

Presumably, the journal that received our article selected two reviewers from those who might have voluntarily offered them the job. It didn't really matter whether they volunteered or not, but I'm pretty sure that someone who has studied the VM-texts beforehand and has some prejudices and opinions in certain details has been chosen.

I have no specific arguments for French, Italian or German, and my knowledge of the writing styles of the ancient manuscripts of these languages is very limited. When I want to compare the writing styles of these languages or their ancient texts with Old Turkish or today's Turkish, I scan academic articles.

Why am I writing all this now?

Why are we talking about whether VM texts have prefixes or not?

In addition, the fact that word repetitions are detected in texts up to quintuples and their presence in the texts (frequency of writing the same word repetitions) is considered as an abnormal or unusual situation. But when it comes to Turkish, they show a complete overlap. Likewise, the words provide overlap in many different details in terms of their spelling. For example, some words never start with some letters, and certain letters never appear at the end of words. Moreover, the fact that these letters are the same as those in Turkish. And all these details are of course not a coincidence in terms of mathematical possibilities. Because all these are actually structural evidence.

Those who evaluate the claims in our article make an evaluation based on their own ideas, instead of looking at whether there is a similar structure in Old Turkish.

It is not my aim to examine why the first article we wrote was poorly evaluated and not published. In the end, this is not really important, and it is only the choice of the journal that does not publish an article. The main issue I want to draw attention to here is that some details that are thought to be confirmed about VM are actually not confirmed by scientific evidence.

It's a common belief that when you look at VM-texts (even though you can't read them), you see a lot of prefixes there. In this case, the reason why I examine this issue here is precisely to show that these judgments are inconsistent.

So I'm asking anyone who thinks these structures are prefixes: Why shouldn't they be standalone short words? Why shouldn't these be root words? What are the elements that disprove my claim at this point, but prove that they are prefixes?

Even you, linguists, who can think in an Indo-European language (since you haven't studied the Turkish language), you see many anomalies in these texts.

We say that all the details that you consider as anomalies are normal situations for Turkish and part of the natural structure of the language. Moreover, we do not just say this, we show the overlaps with Turkish by presenting the evidence and logical inferences.

However, you can continue to write that there are prefixes in these texts and look for examples. You will continue to research the subject as if we did not present any other evidence, as if the only overlap we have provided between the VM texts and the Turkish language is in this detail. You all can search VM-text structure on many way, but whatever detail you look at, you will experience an inexplicable confusion because the content is clearly in Turkish and you can search as much as you want and there will be no other results. Actually the VM riddle is solved and you don't realize it yet.

The most rational way to progress in scientific work is to question and evaluate correctly. This can be done correctly when you have the knowledge to evaluate the claim put forward. Here I am giving you accurate information about Turkish so that it will be easier for you to compare. 

All you have to do is carefully read the information and evidence I have presented, and compare it with the data you have. When you do this, you will understand that the texts are in Turkish.

Thanks for your explanation.

Kind regards,

A. Ardıç

[attachment=7227]
Often you can see that the letter "8/d" does not belong to the actual word. This changes from word to word.
As already described, French uses the apostrophe. Whether "de terre" or "d'terre" is irrelevant. It is written out once and shortened once.
We do the same, but rarely use an apostrophe.
Look carefully. It's not always what it looks like.
You just have to know it and understand it. And if there are 2x 8 at the beginning, you can bet that the first one is an article. Written out "de

(05-03-2023, 01:33 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Often you can see that the letter "8/d" does not belong to the actual word. This changes from word to word.
As already described, French uses the apostrophe. Whether "de terre" or "d'terre" is irrelevant. It is written out once and shortened once.
We do the same, but rarely use an apostrophe.
Look carefully. It's not always what it looks like.
You just have to know it and understand it. And if there are 2x 8 at the beginning, you can bet that the first one is an article. Written out "de

Hi, there, I have collected some words from the VM that might that are definitely the prefixes and show the pattern how the prefixes work. As you can see, the words in each row are in the same grammatical form, that is, the same root and suffix, but prefix is different. I hope Ahmet can provide the translation and explanation for these words.[attachment=7228]

Dear researchers,

In order to claim that there is a prefix in VM-texts, or to make explanations about the content of the text or which word is used in what sense, it is necessary to read complete sentences and show (using scientific methods) that the sentences read match the content or the drawings in the content in VM. If this is not done, it will not be possible to verify the claims made about the texts. But in any case,any person can made interpretations and speculations for the VM drawings.

Even linguistic studies have created many imaginative constructive languages and many anagram word readings. Confirmation of these can again be achieved through scientific discussion. In order for the scientific discussion environment to develop, the evidence presented must be definitively refuted or confirmed. Our work has been confirmed by many Turcology professors. And not a single subject expert has refuted our claims by presenting a single evidence yet.

Because we read the texts in Turkish on every line for 240 pages. The only problem is certain hard-to-read words in almost every line due to the difficult spelling, and these too will be read over time for sure. But may be some of these kind of words can also be words borrowed from European languages. In this case, in order to read the texts, researchers from all languages (especially ancient Italian, Greek, Balkan area languages and/or may be Arabic) should start evaluating the texts according to our ATA transcription.

Widespread awareness for this to happen has not yet occurred and Turkish is not yet accepted as the strongest possibility even on this voynich.ninja platform. I understand this situation because probably there have been erroneous inferences that are thought to be correct and researches are developing & searching many ideas around them.

However you don't even need to know Turkish or be a linguist to understand some of the evidence we present here. In particular, issues such as the absence of some sounds at the beginning and end of any word in Turkish, or the occurrence of word repetitions up to fives and the visible density of word repetitions on almost every page are unique & Turkish-specific, and these are 100% overlapping with VM texts too.

When we present this type of evidence based on academic articles and Old-Turkish examples, we expect researchers who read them to accept or refute the evidence presented. Here, however, when we present a proof, we do not receive feedback on its acceptance or rejection with reference to linguistic rules. I hope those who see Turkish as a possibility will examine the evidence we present in depth, not superficially. Thus, we can look at whether there are words from European languages such as Greek or Italian together with Turkish words in Turkish sentence structure in the content. 

I hope some of you can cooperate with us when you realize that you are nearing the end of the number of words you can produce with anagram readings.

Kind regards,

A. Ardıç